'Unconvincing Bible For Blockchain Solutionists' 42
Molly White of Web3 is Going Great fame reviews Read Write Own, a book by VC firm Andreessen Horowitz lead crypto partner Chris Dixon. According to its own description, the book seeks to offer an exploration of "the power of blockchains to reshape the future of the internet." Writes White: After three chapters in which Dixon provides a (rather revisionist) history of the web to date, explains the mechanics of blockchains, and goes over the types of things one might theoretically be able to do with a blockchain, we are left with "Part Four: Here and Now", then the final "Part Five: What's Next". The name of Part Four suggests that he will perhaps lay out a list of blockchain projects that are currently successfully solving real problems.
Dixon speaks of how in the early days of "web1", or the "read era" (a period he defines as 1990-2005), "anyone could type a few words into a web browser and read about almost any topic through websites". This completely ignores that few people -- hardly just "anyone" -- had access to a computer, much less a computer with internet access, in that time. By 2005, around 16% of people globally were online. This may be why Part Four is precisely four and a half pages long. And rather than name any successful projects, Dixon instead spends his few pages excoriating the "casino" projects that he says have given crypto a bad rap prompting regulatory scrutiny that is making "ethical entrepreneurs ... afraid to build products" in the United States.
In fact, throughout the entire book, Dixon fails to identify a single blockchain project that has successfully provided a non-speculative service at any kind of scale. The closest he ever comes is when he speaks of how "for decades, technologists have dreamed of building a grassroots internet access provider". He describes one project that "got further than anyone else": Helium. He's right, as long as you ignore the fact that Helium was providing LoRaWAN, not Internet, that by the time he was writing his book Helium hotspots had long since passed the phase where they might generate even enough tokens for their operators to merely break even, and that the network was pulling in somewhere around $1,150 in usage fees a month despite the company being valued at $1.2 billion. Oh, and that the company had widely lied to the public about its supposed big-name clients, and that its executives have been accused of hoarding the project's token to enrich themselves. But hey, a16z sunk millions into Helium (a fact Dixon never mentions), so might as well try to drum up some new interest! Further reading: How Tech Firms Made a Crypto-Boosting Book an NYT Best Seller by Gaming the System.
Dixon speaks of how in the early days of "web1", or the "read era" (a period he defines as 1990-2005), "anyone could type a few words into a web browser and read about almost any topic through websites". This completely ignores that few people -- hardly just "anyone" -- had access to a computer, much less a computer with internet access, in that time. By 2005, around 16% of people globally were online. This may be why Part Four is precisely four and a half pages long. And rather than name any successful projects, Dixon instead spends his few pages excoriating the "casino" projects that he says have given crypto a bad rap prompting regulatory scrutiny that is making "ethical entrepreneurs ... afraid to build products" in the United States.
In fact, throughout the entire book, Dixon fails to identify a single blockchain project that has successfully provided a non-speculative service at any kind of scale. The closest he ever comes is when he speaks of how "for decades, technologists have dreamed of building a grassroots internet access provider". He describes one project that "got further than anyone else": Helium. He's right, as long as you ignore the fact that Helium was providing LoRaWAN, not Internet, that by the time he was writing his book Helium hotspots had long since passed the phase where they might generate even enough tokens for their operators to merely break even, and that the network was pulling in somewhere around $1,150 in usage fees a month despite the company being valued at $1.2 billion. Oh, and that the company had widely lied to the public about its supposed big-name clients, and that its executives have been accused of hoarding the project's token to enrich themselves. But hey, a16z sunk millions into Helium (a fact Dixon never mentions), so might as well try to drum up some new interest! Further reading: How Tech Firms Made a Crypto-Boosting Book an NYT Best Seller by Gaming the System.
Re: (Score:2)
The only true bible is the Pyramids Text c. 2400–2300 BCE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Proto-Elamite, still developing from pictograms, was in use from 3200 BCE to 2900 BCE, and it hasn't been deciphered, so that can't be right.
Do you know of anything older than the Kesh Temple Hymn from 2600 BCE?
Re:False Bible (Score:4, Insightful)
"The only true bible is the Kings James Bible."
You have to read Jesus's words in the original English!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to read Jesus's words in the original English!
Come on, dude. You've been here even longer than me. You REALLY should have said "in the original Klingon".
Re: (Score:2)
The only true bible is the Popul Vuh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only true bible is the Macintosh Bible.
(jesus is a myth)
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote from some other guy here on slashdot sums it up perfectly:
- new database
- stores records forever
- no purging of old records, obsolete records
- guaranteed to grow in size forever
- can't edit records
- sequential processing with complex calculations so it's not Order(1) or O(n) or even O(n^x) but a complex polynomial that grows by yet another O(n^y) each time another entry is added
- guaranteed to always get slower over time -- it's the nature of cumulative calculations to verify the data each and every time it's accessed
This new database is available immediately. It currently underperforms
- SQlite
- MysQL
- MariaDB
- Oracle
- MSSQL
- NOSQL
- a flat text file
- an SOS written with a stick on a deserted desert island to attract air rescue
Welcome to Blockchain, the database worse in every respect except one -- authentication.
So if you believe that the only way to do authentication properly is to accept all the above,
then it's a good thing you're not a security researcher.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to mention "all data MUST be public". Versus it being optional with other DBs.
It's arguable that it's even better in authentication, the one supposed strength. Let's compare security on an open Proof of Work blockchain to an open Proof of Authority system (aka, your typical "database with authenticated access via public key encryption", where the "proof" is that it was signed by the authority's private key.
Resistance to attacks (scale):
PoA: Equally effective at all scales
PoW: You have to have a
The most useful blockchain... (Score:1)
...is essentially git. The whole point is essentially to create a version control system that maintains 100% history, and that comes with all the pitfalls of scalability you can imagine. With git, each repository is its own "blockchain", and the true value found in each chain isn't some sort of monetary replacement, but simply a way of tracking and dealing with history. Ultimately, everyone can have their own "Bitcoin(n)", with their own starting seed of "n", and the only "value" of "Bitcoin(prime)" is p
Distributed Web (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you self-host then you have essentially one point of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If everybody self-hosts, then, yes, the whole thing can't come down from one failure. However, if *you* self-host, then the content that *you* are hosting has a single point of failure, and indeed likely several single points of failure, unless you pour a lot of resources into redundancy for it. The fact that these points of failure won't affect some other guy self-hosting doesn't change this for *your* content. Hosting services can offer relatively cheap redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, if *you* self-host, then the content that *you* are hosting has a single point of failure,
see my other post [slashdot.org] (I'm a different person responding here)
and indeed likely several single points of failure, unless you pour a lot of resources into redundancy for it.
As above; there's something to be said for actually taking responsibility over your own stuff instead of ceding near-total control of it to some other unanswerable entity.
Re: (Score:3)
If you self-host then you have essentially one point of failure.
There's only 1 blockchain - how's that any better?
Re: (Score:1)
Because the blockchain is being stored in hundreds if not thousands of independent places. I'm no big fan of blockchain, but the redundancy while maintaining consistency is nicely worked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the blockchain is being stored in hundreds if not thousands of independent places. I'm no big fan of blockchain, but the redundancy while maintaining consistency is nicely worked out.
By that logic, that means I should be able to perform a Bitcoin transaction, all on the Ethereum blockchain, and vice-versa. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way; so "redundancy" doesn't mean there's more than 1 blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point - there's nothing more 'redundant' about blockchains for that sillyness they can "web3" that can't be already achieved with existing, more efficient and time-tested tech:
I can use multiple DNS entries.
I can have multiple, load-balanced servers.
I can use as many service/hardware providers & CDNs as I wish/need
I can distribute and/all of this geographically as I need
All of which is fully under my control, and not subject to anyone/thing that dictates how it all works (can change any of
Re: (Score:2)
"By that logic, that means I should be able to perform a Bitcoin transaction, all on the Ethereum blockchain, and vice-versa."
I don't quite follow you here. I made no such claim. The Bitcoin blockchain is kept on hundreds of independent systems (but is nevertheless consistent across those systems), making it resistant to failure or malice in any subset of those systems, as long as the subset is not too large. That in no way implies it interoperates with the Ethereum blockchain, which is completely separa
Re: (Score:3)
I don't quite follow you here.
I said (paraphrasing): "1 blockchain no better than self-host single point of failure"
You replied (again paraphrasing): "well no, because 'redundancy' ", which aren't the same thing, so irrelevant, so....
I reply: "well, if 'redundency' = not single blockchain, implies redundancy = multiple blockchains, so every blockchain redundant, so all the same, because 'redundancy' like you said"
You reply: a confused "Huh?", proving my point.
Re: (Score:1)
Your explanation is little more than, "No, I'm right and your wrong." Please explain how if Bitcoin can lose multiple system or have multiple systems turn malicious at random without compromising the blockchain, how it has a single point of failure. What single thing, precisely, has to fail to cause the blockchain as a whole to fail? Redundancy does not imply multiple blockchains, it implies that the single blockchain is resistant to any single part failing. If I have a website that is backed by multipl
Re: (Score:2)
My home has redundant power in the form of a battery backup. Doesn't mean I suddenly have 2 houses or it becomes twice the square footage because I have twice the amount of power sources
Correct - a tornado taking out the entire house means there's no house to go to anymore, as there isn't a "backup house" like it had backup power (not that I'd wish that to ever happen, obviously).
It's only a matter of time before some sort of "blockchain attack" proves that blockchains aren't any better than what already exists today.
Re: (Score:2)
Redundancy does not imply multiple blockchains
Thank You (finally!)
Re: (Score:1)
It's nearly impossible to take down a decentralized blockchain. Try taking out Ethereum this weekend, see how well you do. And Ethereum isn't even that decentralized anymore . . .
Not an expert but ... (Score:2)
While I can imagine that blockchain could be used to solve (be a solution for) some problems, I'm not sure it's actually needed to solve any problems. In other words, there are probably other, perhaps more established, ways to the same end. New and/or different isn't necessarily better.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps blockchain would be helpful for string theorists.
Once again, into the breach... (Score:5, Funny)
Dissociated Press (DP) — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Physicists identify new fundamental particle
May herald a new particle family and restructuring of the Standard Model
Geneva, Switzerland — August 2018
Keywords: hypino, shinyon, blockchain
High energy particle physicists at the CERN (Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nullité) facility have confirmed the existence of the long-conjectured hypino (hy-PEE-no). It is thought to be the first member of a new class of particles known as shinyons (SHY-nee-ons), distinct from bosons and fermions.
Unlike other subatomic particles, hypinos carry no charge, and have neither rest nor relativistic mass. Their only defining quantum property is spin. Hypinos are thought to be the fundamental unit of marketing hyperbole. To date, hypinos are the only known members of the proposed class of shinyons, which are of especial interest to tech investors and holders of the MBA degree. Dr. Martin Waugh, of the Institute for Advanced Squander, further posits that the hypino may be the carrier of the so-called “weak-minded force”, a mutual repulsion between fools and their money. It is theorized that, upon sufficiently accelerated spin, hypinos transform into super-excited hyperinos, detectable only by Chief Information Officers.
The discovery of the hypino is recounted by Drs. Robert Crawford and Robert Jensen as follows:
“It was a Friday afternoon, and we and our colleagues were returning from a long lunch. Maintenance on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was scheduled to start Saturday morning, and the apparatus would be unavailable for two months. We were in a ‘what the hell’ kind of mood, so we thought we'd take a fantasy shot, just for grins and giggles.
“We had a few leftover Higgs Bosons from 2012 on the shelf, so our lowly lab technician, Garth Dennis, breech-loaded them into the beast , set up a blockchain for the target, positioned the extremely sensitive Swindleometer at the intended point of collision, energized the superconducting electromagnets, and let it rip. Upon collision, the blockchain shattered into a shower of the elusive hypinos. Examination of the debris field revealed that the blockchain and all of our cash were gone! Apparently the hypinos were entangled with our funding.”
There may be natural sources of hypinos. The strongest natural emitters appear to be located in Redmond, Washington, and Armonk, New York.
Pyrite Pete's failed prediction (Score:1)
On Monday April 26, 2021 @02:16AM UTC, Pyrite Pete [urbandictionary.com] had said:
That was back when bitcoin had already fallen, and down to about $47K at the time. It should've been back up to "twice its value" no later than June 26 2021 - over 2.5 years ago. It's currently nowhere near the $94K Pyrite Pete promised us.
Now that's what I call a prediction #FAIL!
Want more LOLs @ Pyrite Pete shitposts? Here are but a sample:
"It is pretty much a given that BTC will be up to 1 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This AC theory aligns with my own suspicion that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is really a small group of Wall Street quants looking for a way to create another bubble that they could exploit to semi-legally steal more billions.
Real Use Case (Score:2)